Video: Bachmann “suspends” campaign

posted at 12:20 pm on January 4, 2012 by Ed Morrissey

As expected, Michele Bachmann announced the suspension of her presidential campaign after coming in last among candidates seriously vying for a win in the Iowa caucuses. The outcome was inevitable after the disappointing finish, but a suspension still leaves Bachmann some cards to play in 2012:

The Minnesota congresswoman suspended her campaign, a legal technicality that will allow her to continue to raise and spend campaign funds.

“Last night the people of Iowa spoke with a very clear voice and so I have decided to stand aside,” Bachmann told a crowd of supporters in West Des Moines. But, she added, “I will continue fighting to defeat the president’s agenda of socialism.”

“It is safe to say we don’t see a viable way forward,” a Republican source familiar with Bachmann’s campaign told CNN before the announcement.

Bachmann’s withdrawal is a blow to many die-hard tea party conservatives. The congresswoman, a leading populist conservative in the House of Representatives, has often led the GOP’s rhetorical charge against President Barack Obama’s agenda.

Bachmann made a wise choice, and leaving her options open gives her at least some influence in the race. While the result of the race is obviously disappointing, I think Bachmann did herself more good than harm in 2011 as a presidential candidate. She managed to push her way past the “crazy eyes” meme, especially in the last few debates, while still occasionally tripping up on her habit of unsupportable hyperbole.

Where does she go from here? I’d suspect that she’ll refocus on a re-election bid for her House seat, but after this year, she will also have more claim to a spot in Republican leadership in the next session of Congress. Her raised profile will help build her standing with Tea Party activists around the country, and that will make her a formidable critic of Barack Obama in the general election. On top of that, it will also help her expand her nationwide fundraising efforts, a task at which Bachmann has proven especially adept over the years. She’s not done by any stretch of the imagination, and she may be stronger than ever as a result.

Update: Sorry, I just noticed the headline problem. I accidentally pasted the tags into the headline field.

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Did you listen to what Rush said? It’s not a choice between Ron Paul and the Establishment. Ron Paul is ruled out by his foreign policy positions, which would endanger national security. He will fade away in a month or two and take his campaign money with him.

Iran doesn’t need to destroy us because we’re destroying ourselves. We are bankrupting our future in order to pay for all of the socialism and militarism. We have an aging population and it simply can’t be sustained any longer. If baby boomers wanted to fight wars all over the world to create utopia they should have had more children and fewer abortions.

If Bachmann had managed to win, which given the misogynistic views of many was nearly impossible, I think she would have done more to restore fiscal responsibility in the federal government than essentially anyone else in the race (Except Paul with his crazy foreign policy positions). She wasn’t perfect, but her errors were far less than Perry’s or Santorum’s or Gingrich’s or Paul’s and yet she is out and they are still in.

Her being a woman wasn’t the major factor in her loss, but it clearly was a factor. Women have to be twice as good as men in order to be competetive. They are held to a much higher standard. Her major error was her statement that a woman came up to her after a rally and said that her child became retarded after getting a vacine. Compare this to Perry’s inability to name 3 departments he would close , or Newt’s adultery, or Santorum’s raging homophobia, or Paul’s defense of Manning’s patriotism. She had many strengths, but she wasn’t twice as good, so she’s out.

I just don’t think Romney will be much better than Obama, and I don’t think anyone else in the race (or Palin can get past Obama’s media firewall. Too bad.

So what nugget of wisdom was it that told you this was even necessary?

anuts on January 4, 2012 at 1:19 PM

The history of deceit and deception of that convicted criminal Mr. J Smith is consistent with the actions of Romney’s super pac against Gingrich followed by the hypocritical claims of innocence by Mr. Romney. Nonetheless, if Romney is the candidate he will be easy pickings for one of BHO’s super pacs. He’ll go down big time probably leaving the Senate in Democratic hands.

Good riddance. Her antics will also cost her the House seat she is currently occupying.

Her being a woman wasn’t the major factor in her loss, but it clearly was a factor. Women have to be twice as good as men in order to be competetive. They are held to a much higher standard. Her major error was her statement that a woman came up to her after a rally and said that her child became retarded after getting a vacine. Compare this to Perry’s inability to name 3 departments he would close , or Newt’s adultery, or Santorum’s raging homophobia, or Paul’s defense of Manning’s patriotism. She had many strengths, but she wasn’t twice as good, so she’s out.

talkingpoints on January 4, 2012 at 1:31 PM

Utter BS. Bachman was the most unqualified inexperienced joke of a candidate of them all. A couple years of doing nothing in the House, and proclaiming herself the “tea party queen”. And Bachman gives Santorum a run for his money on the raging homophobia front. Remember, Bachman and her husband ran/run a pray-the-gay-away ‘counseling’ business. You can’t make this stuff up. Or the fact that she worked as a tax-collector for the IRS, and then claimed she was doing undercover research or something. Or how about literally hiding in the bushes to spy on gay protesters. Spare us the sexism card. Its pathetic. Bachman is an inept fool and got what was coming to her.

You have a choice between Ron Paul or a bunch of authoritarian big-gov candidates. Which are you going to choose?

FloatingRock on January 4, 2012 at 1:36 PM

Even if I were to accept your premise (authoritarian big-gov candidates) I would still find it less dangerous to a larger amount of life/limb for an Anybody But Paul voting behavior. His foreign policy is that naive, dangerous, and wildly expensive to implement.

…but I don’t accept it anyway. I think sanity must rule the day, at the end of it. I also think asking a replacement for an America hater should not leave any doubts. I am less convinced of his credentials here than on anything or anybody else pro or con.

I don’t know if anyone had said this before or if even it was shown in this clip, but, if she had articulated what she said in this speech about 0bamacare (how destructive it is), 0bama’s quest for socialism, also wanted to repeal the Dodd – Frank bill, and wanted to get 30 republican senators elected also, she would have gone a lot further. Nooo, because during her campaign she came across as a cheerleader saying and repeating her assine comment “I’m going to make 0bama a 1 term president”. That is obviously what everyone wants. She reminds me alot of Perry, unable to think on her feet. Oh well.

Bachmann tried to make up for being a woman by attacking people. First it was Pawlenty, then she went right for Perry and Guaradasil. Iknow why Perry made it an EO, it was becuase people would have to pay 300 for it. The EO mandate made insurance cover it for the co-pay. He reversed it and apoligized for it.
I think she stayed in it to be Romney’s VP. I’m waiting for her endorsement of him so he can pay her debt, the same thing he did for Pawlenty.

Do you remember that all the polls had RP first going into the caucus? He had the most boots on the ground, too. Looks like the sane people in Iowa stepped forward to save the image of their fine state.

Oh cute, implying that I’m actually gay because I support equality for homosexuals.

I’m actually not gay, FYI. Believe it or not, there are straight people out there who finds gays to be perfectly acceptable people who don’t need folks like Bachmann doing what they can to continue to perpetuate myths that they need to be ‘fixed.’

Believe it or not, there are straight people out there who finds gays to be perfectly acceptable people who don’t need folks like Bachmann doing what they can to continue to perpetuate myths that they need to be ‘fixed.’

Vyce on January 4, 2012 at 2:05 PM

And no doubt there are homosexuals who feel perfectly comfortable letting those who choose to opt-out of that “lifestyle”, have the option to do so.

Why is it that we are called upon, as rational thinking adults, to suppress all other forms of destructive behavior but this one not only gets a pass but is encouraged?

I understand the above will probably be offensive to some but I truly do not mean it in the “sinful” argumentation. I’m only speaking biologically as it pertains to furthering the species.

[Natural argument NOT moral argument]

anuts on January 4, 2012 at 1:59 PM

Nice try. You can’t use a word like “destructive” and then turn around and claim you are arguing against homosexuality on a “biological” basis. For starters, “furthering the species” doesn’t even rely on hetero sex, and hasn’t for decades. Ever heard of a sperm bank? This doesn’t even take into account more recent advances which allow making of a baby without any male DNA whatsoever.

You know and I know that your argument has nothing to do with “natural argument” and everything to do with being a lousy excuse for your true motives, which are religious/”moral”.

I’m actually not gay, FYI. Believe it or not, there are straight people out there who finds gays to be perfectly acceptable people who don’t need folks like Bachmann doing what they can to continue to perpetuate myths that they need to be ‘fixed.’

Vyce on January 4, 2012 at 2:05 PM

But you obviously have gay friends and/or acquaintances that influence your opinion.

But you obviously have gay friends and/or acquaintances that influence your opinion.

Norky on January 4, 2012 at 2:17 PM

“Influence”?

Do they have some sort of svengali power over me?

I’ve said this before, to people who are anti-gay or even homophobic: actually go out of your way to make the acquaintance or friendship of a homosexual (since most anti-gay folks pretty much try to have absolutely ZERO contact with gay people). You’ll actually find out, really quickly, that these conspiracy theories about some sort of eeeeevil gay agenda to destroy the fabric of religion and society is all a bunch of BS. Homosexuals, by and large, are ordinary, even occasionally mundane, folks who just want to be treated the say way anyone else is.

But Barack H Obama Sr., was an atheist, that’s not identifying with any religion. From what I read Barack H Obama, has accepted Jesus Christ as his personal savior.

He said in a TV interview that he had accepted Jesus Christ as his personal savior. A follower of Christ is called a Christian, so he can claim that honestly.

Dr Evil on January 4, 2012 at 1:20 PM

And I can stand in a garage and shout to the world that I’m a Maserati, but it won’t make me one. Have you ever heard “By their fruits you shall know them”? Trust me, O’s fruits are ANYTHING but Christian in nature, scope, or outcome! The man is as evil as they come!

Now she can publicly go in full Mittwit mode instead of operating in stealth.

This woman is a disgrace to all women. She made me embarrassed for the rest of my sisters. She is a Back-stabber and cares about no one but herself. I swear I feel sorry for her children. It’s all Michele all the time. She wants to be Obama when she grows up and is just as incompetent and with just as big of an ego with no accomplishments.

Someone above made the argument that if all people suddenly turned gay, it would mean no more children, and therefore was destructive.

This was a bad argument for two reasons:

(1) There is no chance the entire human population is suddenly going to “turn” gay.

(2) In-vitro fertilization.

What consenting adults do among themselves is of no concern to me, Rick Santorum, or anyone else who cares about individual liberty.

I oppose the Paulbots with their anti-semitism, racism, and blame-America-first foreign policy, I oppose the progressive left with their desire to buy power by punishing success and rewarding failure (among other reasons), and I oppose the desire by some on the “religious Right” to impose their personal morality on others.

As for the idea that homosexuality is a “lifestyle” or a choice, I grew up on a farm: about one in every ten male cattle and hogs preferred their own gender, a phenomena many other researchers have noted.

I can assure you that those barnyard animals were not being propagandized by some vast gay conspiracy to subvert Judeo-Christian values.

And given the oppression gay people have faced in most cultures, including the Soviet Union, Communist China, and Castro’s Cuba (those three did not get the memo that gayness is a Communist plot to destroy capitalism), why would someone choose that lifestyle?

There are plenty of stories of people who tried to overcome their gayness; they almost always end in failure and misery.

I find it odd that many conservatives, who like me accept that there are natural and biological differences hardwired in to humans that make men and women behave differently, somehow find it impossible to believe that the same is true of gay and straight people.

Progressives just love shoving people into their ideological gulags, don’t they? The truth is there is no “gay gene”, no one is born a homosexual, and those who find that “lifestyle” unhealthy and harmful have every right to find help to overcome it. That the Bachmann’s provide that service should be applauded, not condemned.

I find it odd that many conservatives, who like me accept that there are natural and biological differences hardwired in to humans that make men and women behave differently, somehow find it impossible to believe that the same is true of gay and straight people.

MidniteRambler on January 4, 2012 at 3:51 PM

I find it odd that people who claim to be conservatives, shill in such an obvious and deceitful way for the progressive homosexual agenda.

As for the idea that homosexuality is a “lifestyle” or a choice, I grew up on a farm: about one in every ten male cattle and hogs preferred their own gender, a phenomena many other researchers have noted.

Goodbye, Mrs. Bachmann. Now, since you were so kind to leave early rather than dragging it to the bitter end, I will merely throw your fundraiser letters away instead of sending them back at your dime with an obscenity of choice.

Who cares if someone else wants to be homosexual? I really just don’t get it. Leave them the hell alone, since we have lots bigger issues to worry about then whether crazy old Uncle Willy likes his roommate too much. Sheesh! Get a fricking life, why don’t you!

But Barack H Obama Sr., was an atheist, that’s not identifying with any religion. From what I read Barack H Obama, has accepted Jesus Christ as his personal savior.

He said in a TV interview that he had accepted Jesus Christ as his personal savior. A follower of Christ is called a Christian, so he can claim that honestly.

Dr Evil on January 4, 2012 at 1:20 PM

And I can stand in a garage and shout to the world that I’m a Maserati, but it won’t make me one. Have you ever heard “By their fruits you shall know them”? Trust me, O’s fruits are ANYTHING but Christian in nature, scope, or outcome! The man is as evil as they come!

mom29js on January 4, 2012 at 2:53 PM

Mom29js you just might not be an objective bystander on this one. He stated he had accepted Jesus Christ as his personal savior. Call him a liar all day, doesn’t change the fact he said it, that’s his identification Christian. If it’s all about who he was born to. His father was a Muslim that became an atheist. If his religion is consider somehow the same as his ethnicity, because of birth, it means a Muslim can never convert to any other religion, and I have never heard that to be the case. People are allowed to convert to the religion of their choice, in a free country like the U.S.A.

And given the oppression gay people have faced in most cultures, including the Soviet Union, Communist China, and Castro’s Cuba (those three did not get the memo that gayness is a Communist plot to destroy capitalism), why would someone choose that lifestyle?